This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Padanilam, B. J. Articles by Prystowsky, E. N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Padanilam, B. J. Articles by Prystowsky, E. N. Related Collections Ablation/ICD/surgery Arrhythmias, clinical electrophysiology, drugs

(Circulation. 2005;112:1223-1231.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Controversies in Cardiovascular Medicine

Should Ablation Be First-Line Therapy and for Whom: The Antagonist Position

Benzy J. Padanilam, MD; Eric N. Prystowsky, MD

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

	Introduction

 
Atrial fibrillation (AF), the commonest cardiac arrhythmia with an adverse prognosis, has an estimated prevalence of 0.4% in general population.¹ The disease is associated with significant morbidity related to symptoms, heart failure, and thromboembolism.² Although AF is generally considered a non–life-threatening arrhythmia, it was associated with a 1.5- to 1.9-fold excess mortality after adjustment for preexisting cardiovascular conditions in the Framingham Heart Study.³ In the Atrial Fibrillation Follow-up Investigation of Rhythm Management (AFFIRM) study, a strategy of heart rate control was equivalent to heart rhythm control in terms of quality of life and all-cause mortality but superior in reducing hospitalizations.⁴ Anticoagulation with warfarin is maintained in either strategy if the patient has risk factors for thromboembolism. The major reason to pursue sinus rhythm in patients with AF is to improve their symptoms and quality of life. No studies have shown a reduction in stroke or heart failure when rhythm control is attempted in patients with AF.

Once the decision to achieve rhythm control in a given patient has been made, physicians have to determine the best means of achieving this objective. Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated a modest but highly significant efficacy for antiarrhythmic medications.⁵ The limited long-term efficacy and high incidence of side effects of antiarrhythmic medications have prompted physicians to consider nonpharmacological therapies for AF.⁶ It has also been postulated, in a retrospective subanalysis of the AFFIRM study, that a strategy to maintain sinus rhythm without the adverse effects of antiarrhythmic medications may confer a survival advantage.⁷ In . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Jais, B. Cauchemez, L. Macle, E. Daoud, P. Khairy, R. Subbiah, M. Hocini, F. Extramiana, F. Sacher, P. Bordachar, et al. Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study Circulation, December 9, 2008; 118(24): 2498 - 2505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Aliot and J. N. Ruskin Controversies in ablation of atrial fibrillation Eur. Heart J. Suppl., September 1, 2008; 10(suppl_H): H32 - H54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Noheria, A. Kumar, J. V. Wylie Jr, and M. E. Josephson Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review Arch Intern Med, March 24, 2008; 168(6): 581 - 586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]